Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Lalit Steel and Agro Industries (HC of Punjab & Haryana)

On further appeal by the respondent-dealer who issued invoices, the Tribunal vide order dated 16.9.2009, reduced the penalty to 10% taking into account that 100% penalty had already been levied on the assessee who claimed Cenvat Credit wrongly.

100% penalty has already been levied on the assessee wrongly claiming the benefit of Cenvat Credit, the view taken by Tribunal in reducing penalty in the case of the respondent cannot be said to be perverse so as to hold that a substantial question of law arises.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

 C.M. No. 16102-CII of 2010 and

CEA No. 125 of 2010 (O&M)

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh- I....Appellant.

Versus

M/s Lalit Steel and Agro Industries …Respondent.

Coram: Mr. Justice ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and Mr. Justice AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the appellant.

Date of Decision: 05.07.2010

J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

C.M. No. 16102-CII of 2010

There is a delay in refiling the appeal.

Application is allowed and delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.

CEA No. 125 of 2010

1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of reduction of penalty to 10% dated 16.10.2009 passed by the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Tribunal, New Delhi (in short “the Tribunal”) in the case of the respondent who issued invoices to the assessee who claimed Cenvat Credit wrongly i.e. M/s Asian Alloys Ltd.

2. The allegation made by the revenue is that the assessee fraudulently availed of Cenvat Credit. Demand of duty was raised and penalty equal to the duty demanded was imposed. Penalty was also levied on the respondent. The said order was affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner vide order dated 28.6.2004 (Annexure A-2). On further appeal by the respondent-dealer who issued invoices, the Tribunal vide order dated 16.9.2009, reduced the penalty to 10% taking into account that 100% penalty had already been levied on the assessee who claimed Cenvat Credit wrongly viz. M/s Asian Alloys Ltd.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

4. Having regard to the fact that 100% penalty has already been levied on the assessee wrongly claiming the benefit of Cenvat Credit, the view taken by Tribunal in reducing penalty in the case of the respondent cannot be said to be perverse so as to hold that a substantial question of law arises.

6. The appeal is dismissed.